Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography

Long, Zaiyang; Tradup, Donald J.; Song, Pengfei; Stekel, Scott F.; Chen, Shigao; Glazebrook, Katrina N.; Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.

doi:10.1002/acm2.12310

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional plausible explanation is that the phantoms' elastic integrity may change over time through inappropriate storage or aging of the hydrogel material. Long et al [ 35 ] recently suggested using elasticity phantoms for acceptance testing only (i.e., to verify that the new SWE machine is acquiring the same readings as another similar machine from the same manufacturer).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of shear wave elastography among operators, machines, and probes in an elasticity phantom

Alrashed

Alfuraih

2021

Ultrasonography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) among operators, machines, and probes in a phantom, and to evaluate the effect of depth of the embedded inclusions and the accuracy of the measurements. Methods: In vitro stiffness measurements were made of six inclusions (10, 40, and 60 kPa) embedded at two depths (1.5 cm and 5 cm) in an elastography phantom. Measurements were obtained by two sonographers using two ultrasound machines (the SuperSonic Imagine Aixplorer with the XC6-1, SL10-2 and SL18-5 probes, and the General Electric LOGIQ E9 with the 9L-D probe). Variability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation. Reproducibility was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: For shallow inclusions, low variability was observed between operators (range, 0.9% to 5.4%). However, the variability increased significantly for deep inclusions (range, 2.4% to 80.8%). The measurement difference between the operators was 1%-15% for superficial inclusions and 3%-43% for deep inclusions. Inter-operator reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC>0.90). The measurement difference between machines was 0%-15% for superficial inclusions and 38.6%-82.9% for deep inclusions. For superficial inclusions, the reproducibility among the three probes was excellent (ICC>0.97). The mean stiffness values of the 10 kPa inclusion were overestimated by 16%, while those of the 40 kPa and 60 kPa inclusions were underestimated by 42% and 48%, respectively. Conclusion: Phantom SWE measurements were only reproducible among operators, machines, and probes at superficial depths. SWE measurements acquired in deep regions should not be used interchangeably among operators, machines, or probes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of shear wave elastography among operators, machines, and probes in an elasticity phantom

Alrashed

Alfuraih

2021

Ultrasonography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature suggests that SWS measurements depend on the measurement system 1,2,6,7,8 . These system differences cause clinical uncertainty and slow the adoption of this technology by the clinical community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiological Society of North America/Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance Shear Wave Speed Bias Quantification in Elastic and Viscoelastic Phantoms

Palmeri

Milkowski²,

Barr³

et al. 2021

J of Ultrasound Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms. Methods Two elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz. Results The SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a − 0.27 ± 0.027‐m/s (−12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60‐Hz vibration source. Conclusions Shear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140‐Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.

show abstract

“…The reliability of SWE measurements differs across muscles (Davis et al, 2019) and may depend on the size and positioning of the region of interest (Alfuraih et al, 2018). Inter‐system reliability is not granted (Javed et al, 2022; Long et al, 2018; Mulabecirovic et al, 2016). The reliability of SWE measurements should be documented for the conditions of the study (Alfuraih et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

Haueise,

Le Sant,

Eisele‐Metzger

et al. 2024

Clin Physio Funct Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIntroduction and aimsApproximately 21% of the world's population suffers from musculoskeletal conditions, often associated with sensations of stiff muscles. Targeted therapy requires knowing whether typically involved muscles are objectively stiffer compared to asymptomatic individuals. Muscle stiffness is quantified using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). Publications on SWE‐based comparisons of muscle stiffness between individuals with and without musculoskeletal pain are increasing rapidly. This work reviewed and mapped the existing evidence regarding objectively measured muscle stiffness in musculoskeletal pain conditions, and surveyed current methods of applying SWE to measure muscle stiffness.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL using the keywords “muscle stiffness”, “shear wave elastography”, “pain”, “asymptomatic controls”, and synonyms. The search was supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar. Included articles were critically appraised with the AXIS tool, supplemented by items related to SWE methods. Results were visually mapped and narratively described.ResultsThirty of 137 identified articles were included. High‐quality evidence was missing. The results comprise studies reporting lower stiffness in symptomatic participants, no differences between groups, and higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals. Results differed between pain conditions and muscles, and also between studies that examined the same muscle(s) and pathology. The methods of the application of SWE were inconsistent and the reporting was often incomplete.ConclusionsExisting evidence regarding the objective stiffness of muscles in musculoskeletal pain conditions is conflicting. Methodological differences may explain most of the inconsistencies between findings. Methodological standards for SWE measurements of muscles are urgently required.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

Reproducibility of shear wave elastography among operators, machines, and probes in an elasticity phantom

Reproducibility of shear wave elastography among operators, machines, and probes in an elasticity phantom

Radiological Society of North America/Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance Shear Wave Speed Bias Quantification in Elastic and Viscoelastic Phantoms

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About